Pre-owned: 05-09 Chevrolet Cobalt

009 Chevrolet Cobalt SS Sedan.

GM, handout

by
Graeme Fletcher, Canwest News Service | March 31, 2010

Small

Medium

Large

Having ignored the Chevrolet Cavalier to the point where it was long past its best-buy date, General Motors finally replaced it with the Saturn Ion-based Cobalt. It took a much-needed step forward in all key areas. Not only was it modern, the myriad models broadened its appeal and it had some much-needed swagger, especially in SS (Super Sport) guise. When launched as a 2005 model, the Cobalt sedan was offered in base, LS and LT trims, while the coupe was available in base, LS, and SS Supercharged (SC) models. Over the years, the model designations changed somewhat (LS became the entry-level model, LTZ was added in 2006/07, LT1 and LT2 in 2008/09 and the Sport in 2008); however, the positioning of each remained roughly the same in terms of content. While the base car was a fairly rudimentary thing amenity wise, it was passable as basic transportation.

Moving up to the LS sedan and coupe brought items such as air conditioning.

There was also much more space. The Cobalt’s 2,624-millimetre wheelbase was longer than its competitors, while the width (1,737 mm) allowed the sedan to accommodate two adults in reasonable comfort, although legroom was an issue for taller occupants.

Ditto the coupe, except getting into the back seat was a more athletic endeavour. The trunk capacity was also up there — the car’s 13.9 cubic feet bettered the Honda Civic (12 cu. ft.) and Toyota Corolla (13.6 cu. ft.). The Cobalt’s 60/40-split folding seats and pass-through were a plus; the narrow trunk opening was a limitation.

The Cobalt’s base powertrain married a five-speed manual with GM’s 2.2-litre Ecotec four-cylinder (the LT sedan featured a four-speed automatic). With 145 horsepower and 155 pound-feet of torque on tap, it bettered many of its peers. At the time, the Ford Focus put 136 hp and 132 lb-ft at the driver’s disposal, the Corolla pushed 130 hp and 125 lb-ft, and the Civic DX made do with 115 hp and 110 lb-ft. In 2007, the Cobalt’s output rose to 148 hp, but it came at the expense of available torque, which dropped slightly to 152 lb-ft. In 2009, the 2.2L engine was reworked (variable valve timing was added) to produce more power (155 hp and 151 lb-ft of torque) and better fuel efficiency. Rated at 8.4 litres per 100 kilometres in the city and 5.8 L/100

km on the highway, it was 0.8 L /100 km and 0.1 L/100 km better than the outgoing engine.

Moving up to the two-door SS SC brought a healthy 205 horses and an equally stout 200 lb-ft of torque thanks to its supercharged 2.0L four, with the intake air boosted to 12 psi and cooled by an air-to-water intercooler. This was enough power to motivate the SS SC to 100 kilometres an hour in 6.8 seconds and accomplish an 80-to-120-km/h passing move in a fast 5.8 seconds.

Both times were well ahead of the competition. Only the 2006 Honda Civic Si (197 hp and 139 lb-ft of torque) posted any real challenge; it was slower to 100 km/h (7.8 seconds) but quicker from 80 to 120 (5.3 seconds).

In mid-2005 (as a 2006 model), the Cobalt lineup was expanded to include the naturally aspirated SS sedan and coupe. The 2.4L four-cylinder produced 171 hp and 163 lb-ft of torque.

All Cobalt models featured front MacPherson struts, a twist beam in back and anti-roll bars at both ends. There were, however, several different calibrations. In 2006, for example, the base FE1 keyed on a smooth ride and featured P195/60R15 tires (P205/55R16 on the LTZ). The FE3 suspension (standard on SS models) was noticeably firmer and rode on larger P205/50R17

tires. Finally, the FE5 suspension (standard on the SS SC) delivered a flatter attitude through corners and provided significantly more lateral grip thanks to its P215/45R18 performance tires.

In all cases, the steering feel and feedback was up to snuff once moving, although, as with all electrically assisted systems, there was too much assist at low speeds in the non-SS models. There were no complaints regarding braking power — the front disc/rear drum system on the basic models provided 40-metre stops from 100 km/h. The up-level models benefited from four-wheel discs. Sadly, anti-lock brakes were optional on many models (base, LS and LT, depending upon the year). Likewise, electronic stability control only became available in 2008, and then only on the Sport and SS models.

The ultimate SS arrived in 2008 — the launch of a turbocharged, direct-injection engine that pushed 260 hp and 260 lb-ft of torque transformed it into a ’bahn-burner of the first order. Fast was an understatement. With the turbo working overtime (it could boost the intake air to just less than 20 psi!), the SS romped to 100 km/h in 5.9 seconds and accomplished the 80-to-120 km/h passing move in 5.1 seconds. The only concern was off-the-line torque steer. In fairness, time behind the wheel made it less of an issue.

The SS also earned Brembo brakes (they provided short, 34-metre stops from 100 km/h) and the FE5 Sport suspension. This and the oversized P225/40ZR18 tires allowed it to pull a stellar 0.9 lateral g-force — better than other affordable sports cars and rivalling some serious rides (the 505-hp Corvette Z06, for example, managed to pull a 1.04 lateral g-force). Inside, the deep-dish buckets provided exceptional lateral support and the steering wheel imparted a nice chunky feel. If pure bang for the buck was the name of the game, this car proved to be a game breaker — when launched, the Cobalt SS set a class record around the famed Nürburgring race track, posting a time of eight minutes, 22.85 seconds.

The Chevrolet Cobalt has proven to be a popular choice over the years. Other than some complaints with the electric steering, there have been very few problems. Factor in the lack of recalls and attractive pricing and you have a solid used car purchase.

2006: On some vehicles, the daytime running lights do not function as a result of incorrect programming. 2009: On some vehicles, the transmission shift cable adjustment clip may not be fully engaged, causing the shift lever and the actual position of the trans-mission gear not to match. As such, the driver could move the shifter to Park and remove the ignition key,